Dnarever wrote on Dec 25
th, 2018 at 10:39am:
All we can do is control what we are responsible for.
Your numbers are meaning less as the natural component is balanced, the problem is adding 4% per year above the point of balance for a century or so. What is 100 X 4% ?
Taking the economic advantage of acting earlier is not a bad economic choice it may save us billions in the long term and at the same time produce industries and technology with a real long term market value and benefit to Australia.
Playing catch up may be the very expensive result of our current behaviour.
This is because we have been warming since the little ice age
You know that the little ice age was not an ice age at all, it was a localised cool period the followed the medieval warm period, another localised event.
It is also evident that the graphs you display all measure the period of the Industrial revolution, Would that be because the period between the little Ice age and the Industrial Revolution fails to support the claim ? We know that the industrial revolution was the beginning of anthropological climate impact, when we started pumping quantities of Co2 into the atmosphere.
The graphs you supplied do not support what you would like them to, in fact they hurt your cause.
You better stick to whatever your doing cause you wont make a scientists left finger nail.
So you want to spend billions of dollars trying to keep the climate stable and at a status quo by controlling 1.26% of 4% my goodness mate do you realise how STUPID that is.
Can man really control the cycles of the Earth and the sun......????
The Medieval warm period was global, stop quoting Mann and his cronies to justify a lie.
You believe in science by consensus well then here you go.
You wont hear about these papers on sceptical science....
Quote: